Staaaaaaaaaaaaathei.  :)

I don't recall where its written that the SC must be representative of society.  That almost makes it sound as though the constitution would be construed differently if, say, an atheist looked at the words instead of a theist.  Does the intended meaning of a sentence actually change because of the background of the person reading the sentence?

All I want out of a SC justice is an ability to read and the conviction to stick to what is written.  Incidentally, while the ability to read may be pretty common, the sort of people with the most experience sticking to what is written and living by that are people whose religion ascribes authority to a set of documents.  Christian theists are already used to sticking to the text.  That's something we should want our SC to do as well.

"Your points intended to allay my fears actually confirm them."

I wasn't trying to allay anything.  :)

""That almost makes it sound as though the constitution would be construed differently if, say, an atheist looked at the words instead of a theist.""

"I presume you are being sarcastic, since this is obviously the case."

No, I'm being serious.  I think that's the nature of the problem.  If you can't count on an atheist sticking to the words, than he ought not be a judge.  Before you go apepoop on that, realize I have the same view about theists.  Question is, which one has training submitting to a higher authority?  The theist.

"No, but the meaning that is taken by the person will be influenced by their background."

I can allow that.  But that doesn't mean it should be excused or manipulated.  IMO, the only people who should be on any court are those who stick to the words.

The words, then are decided by the people through their legislators.  Nice check and balance.

"You're kidding, right? The openness of human language to translation and interpretation accounts for the wide variety of Christian faiths and practices."

Sure, but of course such things accounts for a wide variety of a lot of things, not just faith and practice.  Nonetheless, if you can draw from a tradition where people are used to fighting over the meaning of words, that will be helpful as a judge.  And the reason they fought over the meaning of the words is because they intended to actually live by the outcome.  That's a good attitude for a judge.

"I know it doesn't say anywhere that it should represent the country, but it certainly doesn't say anywhere that the Supreme Court of the United States should be completely unrepresentative"

The way to pull that off is by electing a representative that shares your view.   Or, my preference, put it into law as an expression of the will of the people.

Ok, that's your point.  I can appreciate the point, and I won't knock it.  However, I am not so certain it is much different than any other alternatives.  If a person believes that there is no 'higher authority' does he have any inclination to submit to any authority at all?  If so, for what reasons?  Is it 'might makes right'?  

If he only answers to himself, ie, if he considers himself the highest authority, will he faithfully do his duty if a conflict arises between his own preferences and the law?

This is why a stern insistence that our judges stick to the words that are written is important.  We've already got judges who stray from the words on the paper for whatever reason that they invent.  That's dangerous in its own right.  Any judge of any background should swear an oath to stick to the words on the paper, and if their religion won't allow that, they ought not swear the oath, or they should resign.

"Actually, my original point was not that religious people should not be on the bench, it was that the bench should be reflective of the citizens it represents."

So that WAS your point.  Well, then I stand by what I've already said.

"is a GROSS misrepresentation of Atheists"

Who said I was talking about atheists?  I wasn't.

So you are in fact admitting guilt of the very thing you said was a gross misrepresentation?

I was just giving an example how alternatives aren't necessarily immune from such issues.

I dunno, but its sure to be temporary.  :)  A few months from now you'll find something on my web page or something and retract it.